It is quite clear, the Buddha did not instruct to take "there is no self" as right view.

"There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right."Visuddhimagga XIX19

QUOTE"This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person"XVIII24

QUOTE"The mental and material (nama rupa) are really hereBut here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll"

An interesting and pertinent distinction. Namely, that the Buddha taught that "dhammas are not self".... whereas Theravada commentators taught "there is no self".... thereby transforming a phenomenological reality, into an unverifiable ontological proposition.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

retrofuturist wrote:An interesting and pertinent distinction. Namely, that the Buddha taught that "dhammas are not self".... whereas Theravada commentators taught "there is no self".... thereby transforming a phenomenological reality, into an unverifiable ontological proposition.

Metta,Retro.

Well said, Retro.

These day I am also inclining to believe that the ontological stance that "there is no self" may not be in accordance to the right view taught by the Buddha.

According to Kalaka Sutta the Tathagata "doesn't construe a seer ... doesn't construe a cognizer" and according to Kaccayanagotta Sutta the Tathagata does not take a stand about 'my self' (right view, not a position). But this is different from saying that "there is no seer ... there is no cognizer" (a view-position).

Again, this is an intellectual position. Which you are taking as foundational, and drawing out further lines of reasoning from it, and you end up in a position of near fatalism. I say "near" because actually your position is simply incoherent. You deny the efficacy of effort in some areas (like practicing meditation) while allowing for it in others (listening, reading, wisely considering the Dhamma).

It is quite clear, the Buddha did not instruct to take "there is no self" as right view.

Neat, concise on the mark analysis.

I get a different impression of what robertk is saying, though I might be wrong. Effort, attention, concentration, etc, can be both wholesome and unwholesome, and arise with every possible action or inaction. So, it's not about meditating or not, making effort or not, studying Dhamma or not, but whether at those instances effort, concentration, etc, are wholesome or not. I guess it goes down to distinction between mental states and actions - I can appear to meditate, make effort, study, but these actions can be both wholesome and unwholesome in terms of mental states occurring presently.

As for "no self" statements, I take it they are meant to emphasize anatta of everything that arises in a conditioned manner. So it's not about postulating a philosophical view on non/existence of self, but expressing things in terms of anatta, or rather, how a mental state would be understood with developed faculty of wisdom to arise in a conditioned manner that has nothing to do with self, hence "no self" expressions.

In fact veryobviously they don't. But why is that?Mainly it is because of the very deepseated nature of self-view, it must betruly understood that there are only elements arising and passing away with noone controlling or doing anything. These elments don't want to study or notstudy, they are mere conditioned phenomema that arise and perform theirfunction, and then they cease forever and a new element arises.

I believe I may have posted this sutta in here before but you don't seem to have read it. You seem to have fallen into the strange view of the brahman in this sutta:

Then a certain brahman approached the Blessed One; having approached the Blessed One, he exchanged friendly greetings. After pleasant conversation had passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, the brahman spoke to the Blessed One thus:

“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”[1]

“I have not, brahman, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself [2] — say: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’? What do you think, brahmin, is there an element or principle of initiating or beginning an action?”[3]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of initiating, are initiating beings [4] clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. [5]

“What do you think, brahmin, is there an element of exertion [6] ... is there an element of effort [7] ... is there an element of steadfastness [8] ... is there an element of persistence [9] ... is there an element of endeavoring?” [10]

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“When there is an element of endeavoring, are endeavoring beings clearly discerned?”

“Just so, Venerable Sir.”

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

“Superb, Venerable Gotama! Superb, Venerable Gotama! Venerable Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what had been concealed, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark: ‘Those who have eyes see forms!’ Just so, the Venerable Gotama has illuminated the Dhamma in various ways. I go to Venerable Gotama as refuge, and to the Dhamma, and to the assembly of monks. From this day, for as long as I am endowed with breath, let Venerable Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge.”

Regarding the practice that K.S. and her students advocate (hopefully robertk and DF will correct me if I’m wrong): (a) The phrases I hear most often have to do with being aware right now. So, awareness in daily life is encouraged and I take it this is largely in reference to satipatthana sutta. This of course is nothing new, pretty much every teacher I came across encourages awareness/mindfulness at all times.

(b) One significant trait when it comes to K.S. is that right from the start the focus is on explaining the differences between mental states as wholesome/unwholesome, rather than explaining actions as wholesome/unwholesome. In other words - since choice, effort, concentration, attention, etc (as per abhidhamma) arise with every mental state and can thus be both wholesome and unwholesome (as well as there being many reciprocal un/wholesome dhammas easily confused such as chanda and greed for example) - that means that almost every action such as studying dhamma, giving gifts, meditating, greeting someone, etc, can be both wholesome and unwholesome. So, one’s job is beginning to understand this difference between un/wholesome mental states regardless of the outward appearance of an action.

This too is nothing new either, though I find most other teachers would usually give you a meditation method/practice (aka an action of some sort), and then with the help of the teacher and the method, like in a lab, you’d figure out the difference between what’s un/wholesome, and then extend that understanding to the rest of your daily life. With K.S. though, no method, you are straight away directed to consider this in reference to every action in daily life. Hence, there’s a lot of contradicting statements – a lot of “we should develop mindfulness”, referring to wholesome instances of developing mindfulness, as well as a lot of “trying to purposefully arouse mindfulness is [often] greed for results” referring to unwholesome instances of developing mindfulness. I inserted the [often] so that is clear that the statement is not against developing mindfulness, but warning against confusing possible unwholesome state for a wholesome one, that’s all.

(c) Another significant trait is emphasis on anatta and conditionality as the cornerstone of vipassana right from the start. Again, almost every teacher does this, but K.S. in my experience does it most strongly. Basically, it is stressed right from the start that every mental state, wholesome or unwholesome, should be understood as anatta and conditioned. This further disposes with the need for a mediation method because every action in life (or rather, its inherent un/wholesome mental state), no matter how big or small, needs to be understood as anatta and conditioned. Hence, there are a lot of negative statements like “there’s no self that does anything”, ”no one can make mindfulness arise”, etc. These are of course not intellectual views on non/existence of self, but rather statements that are supposed to encourage understanding the whatever mental state that arose right now as anatta and conditioned.

(d) Another significant trait is taking the texts to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Basically, when a text encourages: “one should arouse effort, concentration” etc, this is taken to refer to (describe) an actual arising of a wholesome mental state with wholesome effort, wholesome concentration, etc, right now. So, just taking it as prescriptive is not enough – e.g. if I read such sutta and take it as prescription, I can then try to arouse effort, concentration, etc., basically trying to repeat what’s said as prescribed recipe. But, this is not enough, i.e. it doesn’t guarantee there would be actual arising of wholesome states. So, as before, it’s not about the action like whether one meditates or not, or tries to arouse mindfulness or not, but about whether the mental state that is arising is currently wholesome or unwholesome. So awareness now of whatever arises.

Anyway, as an action-oriented westerner, this sort of stuff is quite foreign, so I had a whole range of questions, which I’ll try to explain in the next post as I understand them so far, in particular -how does awareness actually arises right now, how does awareness develop further, awareness of what exactly, can I speed up the development, can I learn from mistakes, what of choice, what of control, what's wrong with meditation, etc.

Thank you for all the effort you put into writing this, but I have to say that reading it makes me glad I do not follow Sujin. I prefer a view where one can actually make an effort to practice what the Buddha taught.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

In the attakari sutta if I remember correctly the Commentary explains that the part where the Buddha refutes the view of no self doing actionsis the view of Makkhali Gosala

To wit"Great king, there is no cause, no requisite condition, for thedefilement of beings. Beings are defiled without cause, withoutrequisite condition. There is no cause, no requisite condition, for thepurification of beings. Beings are purified without cause, withoutrequisite condition. There is nothing self-caused, nothing other-caused,nothing human-caused. There is no strength, no effort, no human energy,no human endeavor. All living beings, all life, all beings, all soulsare powerless, devoid of strength, devoid of effort. Subject to thechanges of fate, serendipity, and nature, they are sensitive to pleasureand pain in the six great classes of birth."

The sutta is using conventional words to explain conditions. There is no self like a manager behind conditions deciding to do this or that: each element is conditioned by various complex conditions. These conditions are absolutely real .

The sutta is using conventional words to explain conditions. There is no self like a manager behind conditions deciding to do this or that: each element is conditioned by various complex conditions. These conditions are absolutely real .

No one here is advocating a "self" behind the conditions.

These conditions are absolutely real

Do you know this experientially?

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

The Pali term for meditation is bhavana: development. It's a shorthand word for the development of skillful qualities in the mind. Bhavana is a type of karma — the intentional activity ultimately leading to the end of karma — but karma nonetheless.

do you think that someone eating a tuna sandwich could have satipatthana,

That is possible.

or do you belive that only the person at the foot of a tree, or in a isolated room who focuses on the breath is really developing the Buddhas path.

But the real 'change'is not anything outward it is purely the arising of understanding.And this type of understanding, as the suttas say, depends on hearing Dhamma.

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

It is quite clear, the Buddha did not instruct to take "there is no self" as right view.

"There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right."Visuddhimagga XIX19

QUOTE"This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person"XVIII24

QUOTE"The mental and material (nama rupa) are really hereBut here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll"

They often talk about dhatus (elements) in the suttas. What does it mean - element? There are several definitions including this:

"Element is a term for what is soulesss."Visuddhimagga XV 22, and

"They are only mere sortings out of suffering because no mastery is exercisable over them."Visuddhimagga XV 20

"There is removal of false view in one who sees thus: "If formations were self it would be right to take them as self; but being not-self they are taken as self. Therefore they are not self in the sense of no power being exercisable over them; they are impermanent in the sense of non-existence after having come to be; they are painful in the sense of oppression by rise and fall"visuddhimagga xx83

I'll stand by what I said, unless someone can show otherwise. The Buddha did not explain right view in terms of holding the view "there is no self." We know he saw a distinction.

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

(and there are many more suttas that explain the wholesome and the unwholesome, the skillful and the unskillful.

And they are rather recognizable if you ask me. If you don't think you can recognize them then maybe it's because the hindrance of doubt/uncertainty is overwhelming you.

To know what is wholesome and unwholesome in term of sila, or in term of the ten basis of merit is one thing, to know their characteristics as they are present is another. There are gross and subtle defilements, very few people actually recognize the subtle ones, hence the sutta quoted. Of course those people do not meditate believing they are cultivating defilements, but not having the neccesary level of panna which can distinguish the characteristics of the two, they go on nourishing the unwholesome thinking they are going the right way. Thats why the Buddha laid out the criteria of right development of samatha as in that sutta, as well as in many others.

Does that mean mistakes won't be made along the way? No, (and I've made plenty of my own and continue to do so to lesser and lesser extents) but you have to start somewhere and learn as you go. Otherwise you just roll around in samsara aimlessly

We have to start where we are. I agree with that. And where we are, in my assumption being the case of the majority today, is still a level of learning to distinguish the wholesome from the wholesome, to see the danger of the unwholesome and that will naturally incline the mind toward wholesomeness. But i no longer think we need to be in a special place to learn that. All dhammas arise to be understood whenever we are. Moreover, unlike many people here, I believe it indeed is a long process and should unfold in a natural way, otherwise, it is lobha again. We read

Monks, these five are forest-gone. What five?

One is forest-gone out of folly and blindness;

one out of evil desires and longings;

one foolish and mind-tossed;

one at the thought: ”It is praised by Buddhas and their disciples”;

and one is forest-gone just because his wants are little,

just for contentment, just to mark (his own faults),

just for seclusion, just because it is the very thing.

Verily, monks, of these five who have gone to the forest,

he who has gone just because his wants are little,

for contentment, to mark (his own faults), for seclusion,

just because it is the very thing–

he of the five is topmost, best, foremost, highest, elect.

Monks, just as from the cow comes milk,

from milk cream, from cream butter, from butter ghee,

from ghee the skim of ghee which is reckoned topmost;

even so, monks, of these five forest-gone,

he who has gone just because his wants are little,

for contentment, to mark (his own faults), for seclusion,

and just because it is the very thing–

he of the five is topmost, best, foremost, highest, elect.

Gradual sayings, forest-gone

That being said, the level of panna which distinguish the kusala from akusala can be developed anytime, even at the time without the Buddhas teaching. To have the chance to develop the panna which undderrstand dhammas as dhammas is much more difficult. Therefore, now that I have come accross the Buddhas teaching, i believe it is of more importance to really understand realities.

But the real 'change'is not anything outward it is purely the arising of understanding.And this type of understanding, as the suttas say, depends on hearing Dhamma.

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

We could have also underline the first part of this passage. The same sutta, but our undertanding can be different. To me it just confirms how much deeply understanding the Dhamma that one hears is important. When there is truly deep understanding, it conditions chanda and the sense of urgency, which condition the mind to be is heedful to be aware of whatever arises now and approach it with right understanding accumulated from hearing and right considering. A totally empty process. In any case, there is always the danger of reading the sutta which uses conventional language with self-view.

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

We could have also underline the first part of this passage. The same sutta, but our undertanding can be different. To me it just confirms how much deeply understanding the Dhamma that one hears is important. When there is truly deep understanding, it conditions chanda and the sense of urgency, which condition the mind to be is heedful to be aware of whatever arises now and approach it with right understanding accumulated from hearing and right considering. A totally empty process. In any case, there is always the danger of reading the sutta which uses conventional language with self-view.

Let's underline this part again:

one makes an exertion

You guys are totally confused about the difference between putting effort into the practice as described by the Buddha, which is right effort, and self-view. You conflate effort with self-view and greed.

"And what, monks, is right effort?

[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

You guys are totally confused about the difference between putting effort into the practice as described by the Buddha, which is right effort, and self-view. You conflate effort with self-view and greed.

"And what, monks, is right effort?

[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

Are you suggesting that because the Buddha uses the word "one" and "he" and "a monk" and therefore right effort is not a conditioned dhamma which arises because of its appropriate conditions ?

Self-view comes when those conditioned dhammas are taken to be I, me, mine, like in this sutta

"There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.[15] What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';[16] he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;[17] what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,[18] this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';

When there is right understanding, even at the intellectual level, isn't right effort is there? How does it feel?

In the meditation environment, we hear the expression "effortless awareness", I guess it is because when there is some -approximately - right awereness, it feels like there's no effort at all. However, effort must be there too, because it arises with 73 out 0f 89 cittas, and it is right effort becauses it arises with sati in that case.That means what one thinks ordinarily as being effort might very well be lobha accompanied with ditthi- greed with self view.

dhamma follower wrote: Are you suggesting that because the Buddha uses the word "one" and "he" and "a monk" and therefore right effort is not a conditioned dhamma which arises because of its appropriate conditions ?

I do not know why it is that you Sujin followers need to be told repeatedly that no one here is suggesting right effort is not some sort of unconditioned thing.

In the meditation environment, we hear the expression "effortless awareness", I guess it is because when there is some -approximately - right awereness, it feels like there's no effort at all. That means what one thinks ordinarily as being effort might very well be lobha accompanied with ditthi- greed with self view.

What you are saying here is not clear. Please elaborate.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

robertk wrote: The sutta is using conventional words to explain conditions. There is no self like a manager behind conditions deciding to do this or that: each element is conditioned by various complex conditions. These conditions are absolutely real .

robertk wrote:Yes, feeling, for example, is so real (to me).

This thing puzzles me. Isn't feeling (or any conditions) a sankhara? Can we take a position that sankhara are absolutely real (or unreal), according to the Buddha's teachings?

One may - as with ascetics before teh Buddhas time have a deep rooted view of self but be abke to develop aeven to jhana level.

Or one can have right view, know with deep understanding that there is no self, and develop the jhanas. One may still use the common parlance of me, I and so on. But one knows that these are simply designations, terms that are useful ways of communicating but that do not refer to actual realities. Thus one can still train "oneself", but understand that it is only by conditions that any kusala will arise - and thus one will not be perturbed if the kusala does not arise.

Samattha and vipassana can go hand in hand - even for those who are sukka -vipassaka, dry insight workers (pure vipassana). For example, the development of vipassana makes metta -bhavana much easier. The far enemy of metta is anger but if panna is developed one can reflect easily "what am I angry with? Those namas and rupas that arose an instant ago have ceased already. Am I angry with the new ones? But these ones were not the ones that conditioned the sound that impinged on the ear sense. And that ear-sense and hearing consciousness have likewise long since passed...". this is just a very rough example of the type of reflection conditioned by the development of vipassana. This level of understanding allows metta to replace the anger. Lobha, desire, is the near enemy of metta. And for the true development of vipassana there must be good understanding of the characteristic of lobha - otherwise, as we often discuss, one will take refined lobha for sati. Thus as lobha is better and better understood, by developing satipatthana, one is less fooled by it also when developing metta.

The thinking process is composed of namas and some of these also condition rupa. What is not real is the concept that may be the object of thought (purple elephants, mother, self, tables, cars, pretty woman....) The javana moments are always rooted in either kusala (with amoha(wisdom) or without) or akusala. Thus we can talk about wise or unwise thoughts. When we consider Dhamma at the level of pondering the thoughts are to some extent rooted in amoha, wisdom, alobha, detachment and adosa, non aversion. (Ideally that is - we can of course be thinking about Dhamma with underlying delusion or attachment.)

Right Understanding at the level of thinking is a crucial factor before deeper levels can arise. And too, as the direct understanding develops this supports more understanding at the thinking level. It is an unward spiral - wise thinking, direct understanding, wise thinking, direct understanding, wisethinking.... A very gradual upward spiral, cira kala bhavana (long, long time development). Even after vipassana nanas are reached (the real ones) wise thinking and study is needed to further assist wisdom to grow.

The visuddhmagga XVIII24 says

"

after defining mentality -materialty thus according to its true nature (i.e. after the first vipassana nana), then in order to abandon this wordly designation of 'a being' and 'a person' more thoroghly, to surmount confusion about beings and to establish his mind on the plane of non-confusion he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely 'this is mere mentality-materiality,there is no being, no person' is confirmed by a number of suttas. .."